"John Anderton" wrote in message
news:f6igu3liolacgj6roh4ae68dqe183of8fe@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:34:52 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
> wrote:
>>
>>"John Anderton" wrote in message
>>news:vpfgu3dvet4e482h51visc041ruiovojaq@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> If the customer defaults on an unsecured loan and has no assets then,
>>> and only then, the bank is out of luck but if the customer defaults
>>> and has some assets then the bank can go after them. Being able to go
>>> after assets is not the same as "secured" no matter how many times you
>>> say it is.
>>
>>Yes it is because it the unsecured loan is secured on his assets.
>
> No it isn't, as I explained above.
>
> You are making up your own definitions of "unsecured" and "secured"
> which is all very nice but won't get you anywhere when the banking
> industry has it's own, very public, definitions that are different.
>
>>Hence it is a secure loan with a criminally misleading description.
>
> Only if the banking industry were using your definitions, which it
> isn't.
It doesn't matter what terms the banking industry uses it is what
the dictionary definition is and if it is unsecured it must not be secured.
If the bank for example defined the term 'loss' as 'annual profit', that
might
be acceptable to people like you but nobody in their right mind would accept
that.
If however it defines 'unsecured' as 'secured' in it's contract then it
might get away with it. However it would require a legal and political
system rotten to the core to get away with it.
So I guess they can count themselves luucky in that respect.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
|